Advertisement

Pinpointing Disability Accommodation Needs: What Evidence Is Most Relevant?

  • Benjamin J. LovettEmail author
  • Anne L. Bizub
Article

Abstract

Diagnosticians who recommend educational accommodations for postsecondary students with learning, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities often reference specific diagnostic test scores as a basis for the recommended accommodations. Moreover, accommodation decision-makers often follow diagnosticians’ lead and/or rely on the diagnostic scores themselves to make and justify accommodation determinations. The present paper considers the ecological validity of these diagnostic test scores, focusing on their generalizability across time, setting, and dimension of performance. A wide variety of research suggests a need for circumspection and care when using diagnostic test scores to make accommodation decisions. Illustrative data are presented showing that scores from diagnostic cognitive tests do not significantly predict students’ ability to access a realistic test. Diagnostic tests should not be unduly criticized, and data from these tests can be helpful, but both clinicians and accommodation decision-makers should carefully consider issues of diagnostic test scores’ ecological validity and make nuanced conclusions about the needs of a client/applicant based on a wide variety of evidence.

Keywords

Learning disabilities Extra time ADHD Testing accommodations 

Notes

Funding

The illustrative data in the present paper were from a study funded by a Psi Chi Faculty Advisor Grant to the first author. The opinions as expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional). Approval was obtained from the ethics board at the institution where the data was collected.

Animal Rights

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

References

  1. Adelman, H. S., Lauber, B. A., Nelson, P., & Smith, D. C. (1989). Toward a procedure for minimizing and detecting false positive diagnoses of learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(4), 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnett, P. A. (Ed.). (2013). Secondary influences on neuropsychological test performance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., Pliskin, N. H., ... & Silver, C. H. (2005). Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity NAN policy & planning committee. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(4), 419–426.Google Scholar
  5. Caye, A., Swanson, J., Thapar, A., Sibley, M., Arseneault, L., Hechtman, L., Arnold, L. E., Niclasen, J., Moffitt, T., & Rohde, L. A. (2016). Life span studies of ADHD—conceptual challenges and predictors of persistence and outcome. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(12), 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chafetz, M. D., Prentkowski, E., & Rao, A. (2011). To work or not to work: motivation (not low IQ) determines symptom validity test findings. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26(4), 306–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaytor, N., & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2003). The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: a review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychology Review, 13(4), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cone, J. D. (1977). The relevance of reliability and validity for behavioral assessment. Behavior Therapy, 8(3), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Dawes, R. (1994). House of cards. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dawes, P., Sirimanna, T., Burton, M., Vanniasegaram, I., Tweedy, F., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2009). Temporal auditory and visual motion processing of children diagnosed with auditory processing disorder and dyslexia. Ear and Hearing, 30, 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2011). Role of test motivation in intelligence testing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7716–7720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckert, T. L., & Lovett, B. J. (2013). Principles of behavioral assessment. In D. H. Saklofske, C. R. Reynolds, & V. L. Schwean (Eds.), Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 366–384). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, J. N., Langberg, J. M., Rosen, P. J., Graham, A., Narad, M. E., Antonini, T. N., Brinkman, W. B., Froehlich, T., Simon, J. O., & Altaye, M. (2011). Evidence for higher reaction time variability for children with ADHD on a range of cognitive tasks including reward and event rate manipulations. Neuropsychology, 25(4), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon, M., Barkley, R. A., & Lovett, B. J. (2006). Tests and observational measures. In R. A. Barkley (Ed.), Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (3rd ed., pp. 369–388). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  18. Green, P., Rohling, M. L., Lees-Haley, P. R., & III, L. M. A. (2001). Effort has a greater effect on test scores than severe brain injury in compensation claimants. Brain Injury, 15(12), 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gresham, F. M., & Witt, J. C. (1997). Utility of intelligence tests for treatment planning, classification, and placement decisions: recent empirical findings and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gropper, R. J., & Tannock, R. (2009). A pilot student of working memory and academic achievement in college students with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 574–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, A. G. (2015). Child and adolescent psychoeducational evaluations. In M. W. Kirkwood (Ed.), Validity testing in the assessment of children and adolescents: evaluating exaggeration, feigning, and noncredible effort (pp. 185–206). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Participants, C. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(7), 1093–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heward, W. L. (2013). Exceptional children (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  24. Hunsley, J., & Mash, E. J. (2018). Developing criteria for evidence-based assessment: an introduction to assessments that work. In J. Hunsley & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Assessments that work (2nd ed., pp. 3–16). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., & Johnstone, C. (2006). Accommodations and universal design: supporting access to assessments in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 163–172.Google Scholar
  26. Kimberg, D. Y., & Farah, M. J. (1993). A unified account of cognitive impairments following frontal lobe damage: the role of working memory in complex, organized behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(4), 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleinmann, A. E. (2005). Not so fast: Using speed to differentiate high and average readers. Unpublished dissertation, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  28. Larrabee, G. J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS, 18(4), 625–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lerner, C. S. (2004). Accommodations for the learning disabled: a level playing field or affirmative action for elites? Vanderbilt Law Review, 57, 1043–1124.Google Scholar
  30. Lewandowski, L. J., Lambert, T. L., Lovett, B. J., Panahon, C., & Sytsma, M. (2014). College students’ preferences for test accommodations. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29, 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewandowski, L. J., Lovett, B. J., Parolin, R., Gordon, M., & Codding, R. S. (2007). Extended time accommodations and the mathematics performance of students with and without ADHD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lovett, B. J. (2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80, 611–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lovett, B. J. (2014). Testing accommodations under the amended ADA: the voice of empirical research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lovett, B. J., Gordon, M., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2016). Legal conceptions of impairment: implications for the assessment of psychiatric disabilities. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Assessing impairment: from theory to practice (2nd ed., pp. 125–139). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lovett, B. J., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2015). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: research-based practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lovett, B. J., Lewandowski, L. J., & Potts, H. E. (2017). Test-taking speed: predictors and implications. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(4), 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson, J. M., Whipple, B., Lindstrom, W., & Foels, P. A. (2014). How is ADHD assessed and documented? Examination of psychological reports submitted to determine eligibility for postsecondary disability. Journal of Attention Disorders, Advance online, available at:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054714561860, 108705471456186.
  38. Ofiesh, N., Mather, N., & Russell, A. (2005). Using speeded cognitive, reading, and academic measures to determine the need for extended test time among university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Palladino, P., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (2001). Working memory and updating processes in reading comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pardy, B. (2016). Head starts and extra time: academic accommodation on post-secondary exams and assignments for students with cognitive and mental disabilities. Education Law Journal, 25(2), 191–208.Google Scholar
  41. Roberts, B. L. (2012). Beyond psychometric evaluation of the student-task determinants of accommodation: why students with learning disabilities may not need to be accommodated. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(1), 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rutkowski, D., & Wild, J. (2015). Stakes matter: student motivation and the validity of student assessments for teacher evaluation. Educational Assessment, 20(3), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shanahan, M. A., Pennington, B. F., Yerys, B. E., Scott, A., Boada, R., Willcutt, E. G., Olson, R. K., & DeFries, J. C. (2006). Processing speed deficits in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and reading disability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(5), 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sharma, M., Purdy, S. C., Newall, P., Wheldall, K., Beaman, R., & Dillon, H. (2006). Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of auditory processing deficits in children with reading disorder. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117, 1130–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: an analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sliwinski, M. J., Smyth, J. M., Hofer, S. M., & Stawski, R. S. (2006). Intraindividual coupling of daily stress and cognition. Psychology and Aging, 21(3), 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Solis, M., Ciullo, S., Vaughn, S., Pyle, N., Hassaram, B., & Leroux, A. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: a synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sparks, R. L., & Lovett, B. J. (2009). Objective criteria for classification of postsecondary students as learning disabled: effects on prevalence rates and group characteristics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steedle, J. T., & Grochowalski, J. (2017). The effect of stakes on accountability test scores and pass rates. Educational Assessment, 22(2), 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suhr, J. A. (2015). Psychological assessment: a problem-solving approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  51. Swanson, H. L., Howard, C. B., & Saez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 252–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. von Stumm, S. (2016). Is day-to-day variability in cognitive function coupled with day-to-day variability in affect? Intelligence, 55, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wasserman, J. D. (2012). A history of intelligence assessment: the unfinished tapestry. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (3rd ed., pp. 3–55). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  54. Watkins, M. W., & Smith, L. G. (2013). Long-term stability of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children—fourth edition. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 477–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weyandt, L. L., & DuPaul, G. J. (2013). College students with ADHD: current issues and future directions. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New York at CortlandCortlandUSA
  2. 2.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations